Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 5, 2026
Imaging In-Stent Restenosis: An Inexpensive, Reliable, and Rapid Preclinical Model
Published on: September 14, 2009
Cost-Effectiveness of Three Different New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in the Randomised BIO-RESORT Trial at 3
Eline H Ploumen1,2, Martijn J Oude Wolcherink2, Rosaly A Buiten1
1Department of Cardiology, Thoraxcentrum Twente, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Koningsplein 1, 7512 KZ, Enschede, The Netherlands.
Background And Objective:
Evidence on health economic outcomes for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) comparing different contemporary drug-eluting stents (DES) with each other is scarce, as most previous randomised DES trials did not assess such aspects. This prespecified health economic evaluation of the Comparison of Biodegradable Polymer and Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents in an All Comers Population (BIO-RESORT) trial aimed to compare at 3-year follow-up both health effects and costs of PCI with one of three new-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with obstructive coronary artery disease.
Methods:
The randomised BIO-RESORT trial assessed in 3514 patients the ultrathin-strut biodegradable polymer Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and very-thin-strut Synergy everolimus-eluting (EES) stent versus the thin-strut durable polymer Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES). In the current analysis, we used the perspective of a health insurer in the Netherlands. The main endpoints were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs for each treatment strategy. Bootstrapping with 5000 resamples was performed to capture the uncertainty of results.
Results:
Mean QALYs for each stent group were 2.566 for the SES, 2.551 for the EES, and 2.550 for the ZES. Mean costs per strategy were €14,670 for the SES, €14,946 for the EES, and €15,069 for the ZES. The SES had the highest probability of being cost-effective for every willingness-to-pay threshold up to €100,000 per QALY. Furthermore, in 79% of modelling scenarios, the SES was more effective and cheaper than ZES.
Conclusion:
At 3-year follow-up, PCI with the SES had the highest probability of being cost-effective due to greater effectiveness and lower costs compared with the ZES and EES. These findings suggest that, due to the overall high volume of coronary stenting in clinical practice, use of this SES could result in substantial cost savings, complemented by slight additional health benefits.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
01:30Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies
01:26Atherosclerosis III: Management